The Shrinking Battleground: The 2008 Presidential Elections and Beyond

The
Shrinking Battleground uses a model of “state partisanship” to explain
why the United States has experienced a decrease in the number of
competitive battleground states in presidential elections, how these
partisan divisions are hardening and what impact they have on American
democracy. The fundamental reality is that fewer and fewer Americans
play a meaningful role in electing the president – and that the major
party campaigns act on that understanding with utter disregard for the
interests and views of most voters outside of swing states. The result
is a two-tiered system for voters, with damaging impact on voter
turnout, racial fairness, political equality and the future of American
democracy. The mounting evidence makes it clear that the solution is to
establish a direct election of the president so that all votes count
equally and the principles of majority rule and one person, one vote
are respected.

This graph shows the probable number of uncompetitive (black), leaning
(pink) and swing (white) electoral votes that would have been available
in a competitive presidential race in each election going back to 1960.
Over the last several elections the number of swing votes has plummeted.

A comparison of turnout between swing and nonswing states. Residents of
competitive states are significantly more likely to vote than citizens
in uncompetitive states, especially if they're young.

A comparison of the racial makeup of swing and nonswing states. As a
rule, a resident of a swing state is significantly more likely to be
White than the resident of a nonswing state.